If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please note that posts from new users are now moderated. If you have just joined this forum and post a new message it will be held in the moderation queue until a member of staff approves it. Please be patient and our staff will review your submission as soon as possible.

Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

Hi,

My textbook states,

"If we consider the word morbid, we will immediately notice that we cannot break it down into mor and bid because although bid has a constant meaning in a variety of contexts, it does not have that meaning in morbid. Further, mor in the word in question does not have any meaning of its own although it recurs in words like moral and mordant."

According to the explanation above, the word 'morbid' has one morph, so it is a free morpheme.

However,

"Roots are also occasionally bound morphs. These are called bound roots. Bound roots are often foreign borrowings that were free in the source language, but not free in English. For example, in the following sets of words, we would all intuitively identify the root {-vert}, {-mit}, or {-ceive} (in part because it occurs in a number of words, as do the prefixes). However -vert, -mit, and -ceive cannot stand alone as independent words, and we would also find it very difficult to state the meaning of any of these roots, unless we know Latin, from
which these words derive."
The structure of modern language, Laurel J. Brinton.

Re: Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

Originally Posted by angel-girl1

Hi,

My textbook states,

"If we consider the word morbid, we will immediately notice that we cannot break it down into mor and bid because although bid has a constant meaning in a variety of contexts, it does not have that meaning in morbid. Further, mor in the word in question does not have any meaning of its own although it recurs in words like moral and mordant."

According to the explanation above, the word 'morbid' has one morph, so it is a free morpheme.

However,

"Roots are also occasionally bound morphs. These are called bound roots. Bound roots are often foreign borrowings that were free in the source language, but not free in English. For example, in the following sets of words, we would all intuitively identify the root {-vert}, {-mit}, or {-ceive} (in part because it occurs in a number of words, as do the prefixes). However -vert, -mit, and -ceive cannot stand alone as independent words, and we would also find it very difficult to state the meaning of any of these roots, unless we know Latin, from
which these words derive."
The structure of modern language, Laurel J. Brinton.

According to the explanation above, the word conceive has two morphs.

I am confused. Should I follow my textbook or the the other book?

Thanks.

Unless I've missed something (and that's possible), the advice from the two sources is consistent. If you could identify string 'mor' as a word with English or other language meaning, and that meaning was used in the full word, 'mor' would be a morpheme. But you can't, in any language. 'The words starting with 'mor' seem to have no connection leading you to think of 'mor' as being a morpheme.
A string of letters doesn't necessarily make a morpheme simply because more than one word starts with it. eg. "Fresh, free, freckle" don't start with a morpheme 'fre', but "freedom, freeman, freeloader" do start with a morpheme, "free".
Moving to the non-English words, -vert, (to turn) -mit, (with) and -ceive (?), we do get an idea that they have similar meanings. Consider "conceive, receive, perceive". 'ceive' appears to mean "getting something" a conception is something you get in your mind; reception obviously related to receiving/getting; perceive is to get something through perception, etc. So that is a separate morpheme.

Is there a difference between the texts that I've missed, and that you think is important. Or any follow-up question?

There's sometimes a bit of guessing you have to do. Whereas 'mor' is not a morpheme, 'mort' is, as in, 'mortuary, 'mortician', 'mortified'.

Re: Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

I have another question if you don't mind.
How can 'receive' be divided into morphemes?

I would divide it as follows: {re-}+{-ceive}
{re-} is a bound root, not a prefix.

Correct me, please.

A prefix is a morpheme. They are both bound morphemes because they can't occur alone (like say, 'free' can).
All affixes (prefixes, suffixes, infixes) are bound morphemes, but not all bound morphemes are affixes.
I would call 'ceive' the bound root, not 're'. I don't think you could call 'ceive' a suffix here.
(I hope I'm not doing your homework for you!)

Re: Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

Sorry, but I've only just seen this thread.

One reason why the word "morbid" can't be broken down into "mor" and "bid" is simply that it comes from the Latin "morbus/morbidus". If anything then, it would be "morb" (the Latin root?) + "id" (a contraction of the Latin way of forming adjectives from nouns)

Re: Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

Originally Posted by angel-girl1

Hi,

My textbook states,

"If we consider the word morbid, we will immediately notice that we cannot break it down into mor and bid because although bid has a constant meaning in a variety of contexts, it does not have that meaning in morbid. Further, mor in the word in question does not have any meaning of its own although it recurs in words like moral and mordant."

According to the explanation above, the word 'morbid' has one morph, so it is a free morpheme.

However,

"Roots are also occasionally bound morphs. These are called bound roots. Bound roots are often foreign borrowings that were free in the source language, but not free in English. For example, in the following sets of words, we would all intuitively identify the root {-vert}, {-mit}, or {-ceive} (in part because it occurs in a number of words, as do the prefixes). However -vert, -mit, and -ceive cannot stand alone as independent words, and we would also find it very difficult to state the meaning of any of these roots, unless we know Latin, from
which these words derive."
The structure of modern language, Laurel J. Brinton.

According to the explanation above, the word conceive has two morphs.

I am confused. Should I follow my textbook or the the other book?

Thanks.

The first source seems amateurish and naive to me. How can a so-called lexicographer mistake the roots for death, bite and morals? They look alike but are unrelated:

Re: Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

Originally Posted by konungursvia

The first source seems amateurish and naive to me. How can a so-called lexicographer mistake the roots for death, bite and morals? They look alike but are unrelated:

Um, aren't you agreeing with the first source, as it's presented here? They say that 'morbid' can't be broken down further. Therefore 'morbid' is one morpheme. It doesn't say that words starting with 'mor' are related.

Re: Morphemes of words with 'mor' moral, morbid, mordant...

Maybe, if it's a text for absolute beginners, demonstrating a sort of counter-example of how not to read roots as they appear. But asserting that 'mor' recurs in the words given implies, to me, that the author thinks the same thing is appearing in each. Maybe, as you imply, he is adopting that position for didactic reasons.